DOCSLIB.ORG

Justice Denied? the Government's Response to the Ombudsman's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Justice Denied? the Government's Response to the Ombudsman's House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Justice denied? The Government’s response to the Ombudsman’s report on Equitable Life Sixth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 March 2009 HC 219 Published on 19 March 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Public Administration Select Committee The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith, and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service. Current membership Dr Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) (Chairman) Mr David Burrowes MP (Conservative, Enfield Southgate) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgewater) Julie Morgan MP (Labour, Cardiff North) Mr Gordon Prentice MP (Labour, Pendle) Paul Rowen MP (Liberal Democrats, Rochdale) Mr Charles Walker MP (Conservative, Broxbourne) Jenny Willott MP (Liberal Democrats, Cardiff Central) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/pasc Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Steven Mark (Clerk), Laura Dance (Second Clerk), Pauline Ngan (Committee Specialist), Louise Glen (Senior Committee Assistant), Lori Verwaerde (Committee Assistant) and Shane Pathmanathan (Committee Support Assistant). Simon Fuller (Legal Specialist) also assisted the Committee in this inquiry. Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Public Administration Select Committee, Committee Office, First Floor, 7 Millbank, House of Commons, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5730; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] Justice denied? The Government’s response to the Ombudsman’s report on Equitable Life 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Implementation of the Government’s decision 7 “Disproportionate impact” test 8 Widows and widowers 10 Judicial review 10 3 The Government’s approach to this case 11 Findings of maladministration: “judge on its own behalf” 12 Justice or charity? 15 Primary responsibility of Equitable Life 15 Responsibility to taxpayers generally 16 Regulatory failure and compensation 16 Process for establishing the scheme 18 Sir John Chadwick’s role 20 Speed 21 Transparency 22 Conclusion 23 4 Wider issues 24 Ombudsman’s role 24 Accountability 25 Conclusions and recommendations 27 Formal Minutes 32 Witnesses 33 List of written evidence 33 List of unprinted evidence 33 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 34 Justice denied? The Government’s response to the Ombudsman’s report on Equitable Life 3 Summary This Report contains our views on the Government’s response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report on Equitable Life. It follows an earlier Report which we published in December 2008, before the Government’s response was available. In essence, we are deeply disappointed with the response. We are disappointed that the Government has chosen to act as judge on its own behalf by rejecting and qualifying a number of the Ombudsman’s findings. It has done so for reasons which are not well explained in its published response, and which have therefore been difficult to assess. We are disappointed that the Government has decided that compensation is not warranted, arguing that it is under no duty to put right, even in part, wrongs that it admits the State has caused. This may be a legally valid position, but we think that most people would consider it to be a morally unacceptable one. We also struggle to understand the logic behind this decision. The only potentially valid reason that the Government provides, namely that Parliament has considered that financial regulators should not normally be held liable in the courts for financial loss, was introduced late in the day in a way that we find to be shabby, constitutionally dubious and procedurally improper. We are disappointed with the process that the Government has decided to follow for making ex gratia payments to policyholders. This process looks set to be complex, and therefore likely to be slow and onerous for all those involved. It does not take into account the difficult personal circumstances of many policyholders, for example, their age, their health, or the number of years that have passed since the relevant events. This represents a basic failure on the part of the Government to understand the problem which its scheme is supposed to address. The Government’s response has produced a strongly negative response not only from us, but also from the Ombudsman, from Equitable Life and from policyholder representatives. This should give the Government pause for thought. Nonetheless, we accept that the scheme proposed by the Government could help to improve the lot of some policyholders. If this is the best scheme available, we want it to work as well as possible. This requires the Government to ensure that its scheme makes a tangible difference to policyholders as soon as possible. This is much more likely to be achieved through a scheme which is simple and clear. The Government has proposed a “disproportionate impact” test. This test is an unnecessary complication, but if it must remain, it needs to be workable and simple to implement, and should not rely on information which will be hard to access. Individual policyholders have not been told when they can expect to find out if they qualify for a payment, or when they might receive it. This uncertainty is unsettling. An indicative timetable for the scheme needs to be made available as soon as possible. Many policyholders have already died; more will have died by the time a scheme is implemented. It would be deeply unfair if their surviving partners were denied the opportunity to benefit. 4 Justice denied? The Government’s response to the Ombudsman’s report on Equitable Life The Government has appointed Sir John Chadwick, a retired judge, to give it advice on the design of a scheme. His role is another potential factor for delay. There seems to be nothing improper about Sir John’s appointment, despite claims to the contrary by policyholder representatives. It is, however, important for the Government to be clear and honest about which parts of the scheme’s design are independent and which are not. It is important that Sir John’s advice and the representations he receives should be published to show the extent to which the Government has followed his advice as well as how this advice may have been influenced. We also give further thought to two wider issues on which we have previously reported. It is to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s credit and to the credit of the Government that she achieves a satisfactory remedy in the vast majority of cases she investigates. However, she faces greater obstacles where her investigations find injustice which is likely to be very expensive to put right. We have previously called for comprehensive and fit for purpose investigations in such cases that stretch beyond the Ombudsman’s remit, investigations that would be able both to look at the picture in the round and apportion responsibility. Until the Government embraces this kind of broader investigation, the Ombudsman system will remain the best option for holding public bodies to account for costly administrative failings. Despite the numerous opportunities for the prudential regulators to learn lessons, the system of regulation has once again failed the taxpayer and the customers of financial institutions. Effective regulation requires honest and full learning from past mistakes, and this in turn requires regulators to be consistently and effectively accountable. A debate is now needed on how to achieve that kind of accountability. Justice denied? The Government’s response to the Ombudsman’s report on Equitable Life 5 1 Introduction 1. On 15 January 2009, the Chief Secretary to HM Treasury made a statement to the House1 in response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report,2 published in July 2008, into the prudential regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (ELAS). Later that same day, the Government published its written response to the Ombudsman’s report.3 2. In summary, the Government’s response: a) accepts some of the Ombudsman’s findings of maladministration and injustice, although frequently with qualifications of the basis on which the Government is doing so; b) rejects other findings of maladministration and injustice; c) apologises for the findings the Government accepts; and d) rejects the Ombudsman’s recommendation for compensation as a remedy; but e) proposes to establish an ex gratia scheme, after it has received advice from a former judge on certain issues. 3. This Report contains our considered reaction to the Government’s response. It needs to be read in the context of our earlier Report, Justice Delayed, which we published on 15 December 2008.4 We stand by the views we expressed in that Report. We repeat them here only as epigraphs to parts of this Report, and where sense demands it. 4. When we published our views in December, we stated: Whether we need to return to these issues in the New Year will depend on what the Government has to say—but if it gives us any cause for concern, we will not hesitate to do so.5 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Services Ombudsmen. This Consultation
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 196 PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMEN A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Munby (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Mr David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod1 and Miss Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is: Mr Mark Ormerod CB. Topic of this consultation This consultation paper deals with the public services ombudsmen. Impact assessment An impact assessment is included in Appendix A. Scope of this consultation The purpose of this consultation is to generate responses to our provisional proposals. Duration of the consultation We invite responses from 2 September 2010 to 3 December 2010. How to respond By email to: [email protected] By post to: Public Law Team, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020-3334-0262 / Fax: 020-3334-0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, wherever possible, you could send them to us electronically as well (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. After the consultation In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide our final recommendations and we will present them to Parliament. It will be for Parliament to decide whether to approve any changes to the law. Code of Practice We are a signatory to the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation and carry out our consultations in accordance with the Code criteria (set out on the next page).
    [Show full text]
  • The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefighter Or Fire-Watcher?
    12 The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefi ghter or fi re-watcher? Contents 1. In search of a role 2. The PCA’s offi ce 3. From maladministration to good administration 4. Firefi ghting or fi re-watching? (a) The small claims court (b) Ombudsmen and courts (c) Fire-watching: Inspection and audit 5. Inquisitorial procedure (a) Screening (b) Investigation (c) Report 6. The ‘Big Inquiry’ (a) Grouping complaints: The Child Support Agency (b) Political cases 7. Occupational pensions: Challenging the ombudsman 8. Control by courts? 9. Conclusion: An ombudsman unfettered? 1. In search of a role In Chapter 10, we considered complaints-handling by the administration, set- tling for a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Th is led us to focus on proportionate dispute resolution (PDR) and machinery, such as internal review, by which complaints can be settled before they ripen into disputes. In so doing, we diverged from the ‘top-down’ tradition of administrative law where tribunals are seen as court substitutes. We returned to the classic approach in Chapter 11, looking at the recent reorganisation of the tribunal service and its place in the administrative justice system. We saw how the oral and adversarial tradition of British justice was refl ected in tribunal procedure and considered the importance attached to impartiality and independence, values now protected by ECHR Art. 6(1). We, 529 The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefi ghter or fi re-watcher? however, argued that recent reshaping of the tribunal system left unanswered key questions about oral and adversarial proceedings and whether they are always the most appropriate vehicle for resolving disputes with the administra- tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Administrative Redress in Jersey
    JERSEY LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER IMPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE REDRESS IN JERSEY JERSEY LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No. 1/2016/CP APRIL 2016 The Jersey Law Commission is an independent body appointed by the States Assembly to identify and examine aspects of Jersey law with a view to their development and reform. This includes in particular: the elimination of anomalies; the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments; the reductions of the number of separate enactments; and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law. Members of the Law Commission serve on a part-time basis and are unremunerated. The current Law Commissioners are: Mr Clive Chaplin (chairman) Advocate Barbara Corbett Advocate Alan Binnington Ms Claire de Than Mr Malcolm Le Boutillier Professor Andrew Le Sueur (the Topic Commissioner and author of this report) Mr Jonathan Walker Published by the Jersey Law Commission in April 2016 This publication is available free of charge on the Jersey Law Commission website. Jersey Law Commission Law House 1 Seale Street St Helier Jersey JE2 3QG www.jerseylawcommission.org [email protected] Improving Administrative Redress Consultation Paper | CP 2016/1 page 2 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. How to respond to this consultation ...................................................................................... 7 1.2. Administrative decision-making ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Work of the Ombudsman
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee WORK OF THE OMBUDSMAN Written Evidence List of written evidence 1. M B Wright (PHSO 1) 2. Alan Vaughan (PHSO 2) 3. C N Rock (PHSO 3) 4. Alison Pope (PHSO 4) 5. Helga Warzecha (PHSO 5) 6. Brenda Prentice (PHSO 6) 7. Alan Reid (PHSO 7) 8. Which? (PHSO 8) 9. Dee Speers (PHSO 9) 10. James Titcombe (PHSO 10) 11. Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA) (PHSO 11) 12. Anonymous (PHSO 12) 13. Uncaged Campaigns (PHSO 13) 14. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO 14) 15. Patrick Cockrell (PHSO 15) 16. W Morris (PHSO 16) 17. D R Tweedie (PHSO 17) Written evidence submitted by M.B.Wright (PHSO 1) 1) Although we understand the PASC cannot look at individual cases, we have a long outstanding and legitimate grievance against the PHSO case which highlights very serious failings by various senior members of that organisation, and they have resisted all attempts to get them to explain and/or justify their unsustainable position. Given the role they nominally perform, their reluctance – indeed their determination –not to even try to substantiate their indefensible position is very worrying – and suspicious. 2) We have submitted full detailed information of this travesty – with photocopies of all salient documents – to the PHSO, yet they negligently and unprofessionally overlooked the undisputed facts and merely nodded through the unsustainable status quo, presumably believing they would never hear of it again. When we quite properly questioned their flawed decision – sending copies of various letters and emails confirming our position and drawing attention to the errors in their findings – they simply clammed up and refused to explain themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Government by Inquiry
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Government By Inquiry Written Evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 December 2004 HC 51-II Published on 4 January 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £11.00 The Public Administration Select Committee The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of the Health Service Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales and of the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service; and the committee shall consist of eleven members. Current membership Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) (Chairman) Mr Kevin Brennan MP (Labour, Cardiff West) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and Poole North) Mrs Anne Campbell MP (Labour, Cambridge) Sir Sydney Chapman MP (Conservative, Chipping Barnet) Mr David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Mr Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgwater) Mr Gordon Prentice MP (Labour, Pendle) Hon Michael Trend, CBE MP (Conservative, Windsor) Mr Brian White MP (Labour, Milton Keynes North East) Powers The committee is one of the select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Textbook on Administrative Law This Page Intentionally Left Blank Textbook on Administrative Law
    Textbook on Administrative Law This page intentionally left blank Textbook on Administrative Law Seventh Edition Peter Leyland Professor of Public Law, London Metropolitan University Gordon Anthony Professor of Public Law, Queen’s University, Belfast 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Peter Leyland and Gordon Anthony 2013 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Fourth edition 2002 Fifth edition 2005 Sixth edition 2009 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Public sector information reproduced under Open Government Licence v1.0 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ open-government-licence.htm) Crown Copyright material reproduced with the permission of the Controller, HMSO (under the terms of the Click Use licence) British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Library of Congress Control Number: 2012944037 ISBN 978–0–19–960166–0 Printed in Great Britain by Ashford Colour Press Ltd, Gosport, Hampshire Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Administrative Redress in Jersey
    JERSEY LAW COMMISSION TOPIC REPORT IMPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE REDRESS IN JERSEY TOPIC REPORT No. 1/2017/TR 18 October 2017 The Jersey Law Commission is an independent Body appointed By the States AssemBly to identify and examine aspects of Jersey law with a view to their development and reform. This includes in particular: the elimination of anomalies; the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments; the reductions of the numBer of separate enactments; and generally, the simplification and modernisation of the law. Members of the Law Commission serve on a part-time basis and are unremunerated. The current Law Commissioners are: Mr Clive Chaplin (chairman) Advocate BarBara CorBett Ms Claire de Than Mr Malcolm Le Boutillier Professor Andrew Le Sueur (the Topic Commissioner and author of this report) Mr Jonathan Walker PuBlished By the Jersey Law Commission on 18 OctoBer 2017. This puBlication is availaBle to download free of charge on the Jersey Law Commission weBsite. Jersey Law Commission Law House 1 Seale Street St Helier Jersey JE2 3QG www.jerseylawcommission.org [email protected] Improving Administrative Redress – Topic Report 2017 | page 2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 10 SUMMARY OF REPORT 15 CHAPTER 1 ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REDRESS PROJECT 16 About this report 16 Administrative decisions 16 The changing face of administrative decision-making in Jersey 18 Administrative redress 18 Other reform initiatives linked to administrative redress 20 Pervasive issues across the system 21 What was excluded from this project 23 How much will
    [Show full text]
  • Parliament's Watchdogs: at the Crossroads
    Parliament’s Watchdogs: At The Crossroads edited by Oonagh Gay & Barry K Winetrobe UK Study of Parliament Group ISBN: 978-1-903903-49-0 Published by The Constitution Unit Department of Political Science UCL (University College London) 29-30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax: 020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ © The Constitution Unit, UCL 2008 This report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First published December 2008 2 Table of Contents Foreword……………………………………………………………………… 5 Dr Tony Wright MP Note on Contributors……………………………………………………….. 7 Preface………………………………………………………………………… 9 Oonagh Gay & Barry K Winetrobe Chapter 1: Introduction - Watchdogs in Need of Support…………… 11 Oonagh Gay & Barry K Winetrobe Chapter 2: The UK Perspective: Ad Hocery at the Centre……........... 17 Oonagh Gay Chapter 3: Scotland’s Parliamentary Commissioners: An Unplanned Experiment……………………………………………………….. 33 Barry K Winetrobe Chapter 4: ‘Parliamentary Officers’ in Wales: Evolving Roles........... 47 Alys Thomas Chapter 5: An Overview of Northern Ireland's Constitutional Watchdogs……………………………………………………………………. 59 Ruth Barry & Zoe Robinson Chapter 6: Commonwealth Experience I – Federal Accountability and Beyond in Canada……………………………………………………… 71 Elise Hurtubise-Loranger Chapter 7: Commonwealth Experience II – Officers of Parliament in Australia and New Zealand: Building a Working Model……………... 81 Robert Buchanan Chapter 8: The Parliamentary Ombudsman: a Classical Watchdog……………………………………………………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Annual Report 2011
    Moving forward Annual Report 2011-12 Moving forward Annual Report 2011-12 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 14(4) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 10 July 2012 HC 251 London: The Stationery Office £16.00 © Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2012). The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental and agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk and is also available from our website at www.ombudsman.org.uk. ISBN: 9780102979015 Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2499447 07/12 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum The images used in this report are not representative of any person or particular individual and are used purely for illustrative purposes only. Contents Foreword by Dame Julie Mellor, DBE 2 Our role, vision
    [Show full text]
  • PHSO Resource Accounts 2006-07
    Resource Accounts 2006-07 HC 839 Resource Accounts 2006-07 Session 2006-07 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and Section 14(4) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed on 18 July 2007 London: The Stationery Office HC 839 £13.50 © Crown Copyright 2007 The text in this document (excluding any Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any queries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]. Celebrating 40 years in 2007 Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Resource Accounts 2006-07 Contents Page Annual Report 1 Remuneration Report 11 Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities 17 Statement on Internal Control 18 Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 23 Resource Accounts 26 Notes to the resource accounts 31 iii Celebrating 40 years in 2007 Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Resource Accounts 2006-07 Annual Report to the Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2007 Introduction The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PCA), otherwise known as the Parliamentary Ombudsman, is an independent office-holder appointed by the Crown under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 to investigate complaints about government departments, their agencies and some other public bodies in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • A Debt of Honour
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee A Debt of Honour First Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 12 January 2006 HC 735 Published on 19 January 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £13.50 The Public Administration Select Committee The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of the Health Service Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales and of the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service. Current membership Dr Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) (Chairman) Mr David Burrowes MP (Conservative, Enfield Southgate) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Julia Goldsworthy MP (Liberal Democrats, Falmouth and Camborne) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgewater) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Julie Morgan MP (Labour, Cardiff North) Mr Gordon Prentice MP (Labour, Pendle) Grant Shapps MP (Conservative, Welwyn Hatfield) Jenny Willott MP (Liberal Democrats, Cardiff Central) Powers The committee is one of the select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Credits: Putting Things Right
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Tax Credits: putting things right Second Report of Session 2005–06 HC 577 House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Tax Credits: putting things right Second Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 12 January 2006 HC 577 Published on 29 January 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £11.00 The Public Administration Select Committee The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of the Health Service Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales and of the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service. Current membership Dr Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) (Chairman) Mr David Burrowes MP (Conservative, Enfield Southgate) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Julia Goldsworthy MP (Liberal Democrats, Falmouth and Camborne) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgewater) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Julie Morgan MP (Labour, Cardiff North) Mr Gordon Prentice MP (Labour, Pendle) Grant Shapps MP (Conservative, Welwyn Hatfield) Jenny Willott MP (Liberal Democrats, Cardiff Central) Powers The Committee is one of the select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146.
    [Show full text]